Topic 71

71. Which would you choose: a high-paying job with long hours that would give you little time with family and friends or a lower-paying job with shorter hours that would give you more time with family and friends? Explain your choice, using specific reasons and details.

LOWER-PAYING JOB WITH MORE TIME ON FAMILY IS BETTER

As for me, I will definitely choose the latter, a lower-paying occupation with shorter working time. Though the former kind of profession can offer a quite optimistic salary, little time with family and friends is a too high cost, in my opinion. What I value most primarily relates to leisure time with my parents, relatives and comrades.

As a threshold matter, spending considerable time in communicating to my parents makes me feel much more relaxed than concentrating on work for quite a long period. As a common sense, it has a couple of benefits to talk to parents or friends. For instance, friends' valuable advice on how to weather a hard time can ease my tense nerve and encourage me to confront with it. Moreover, since our fathers and mothers have experienced quite more than us, they can teach us how to walk out of marshes / swamps / morasses.

Secondly, to share TV, or to read novels with our own offspring is also extremely desired by them, which surely benefits their growing up. Consider, for example, my experiences when I was a teenager. My father had a relatively easy job, and he usually came home early after work. When we had dinner around a table, my family conferred everything happened in daylight, which made us feel highly happy. To the contrary, a child without sufficient care from his or her parents or adult relatives may grow up to be a freaky person, or even an antisocial one.

Thirdly, someone may point out that only by earning enough money can a person manage to support his or her family. Nevertheless, in my observation, it is of no meaning to focus on jobs exclusively. For example, a tight work schedule may pose harm effects on health. Some people even have to stay in hospital to receive curing because they overlook their body's needs. Besides, little time with family means that a person cannot budget his or her time, and may possibly ignore taking part in activities hold by friends. In the long run, it may make him or her alienated.

In summary, I will manage to successfully plan my private life on condition that I am in a lower-paying position with shorter hours. To the contrast, a busier job will disturb me in several aspects: such as health, soul, and so forth. Then, finally, I would definitely choose a lower-paying career with enough free time.

Topic 61

61. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Parents or other adult relatives should make important decisions for their older (15 to 18 year-old) teenage children. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.

PARENTS SHOULDN'T DECIDE FOR CHILDREN

It is sometimes hold that older teenage children's parents or adult relatives should decide for those children on special issues. For instance, which university or college should they attend to? From my standpoint, under such circumstances, parents or adult relatives should provide advice to offspring from their own experiences; however, children ought to depend on themselves to determine certain things. There are a couple of reasons to name.

As a threshold matter, persons who are 15 to 18 year-old have already developed their own criteria of judging. If older teenagers have to conform to decisions made by parents or older brothers or sisters, they may feel quite frustrated, or even demonstrate some kind of rebellious emotions. For instance, if a girl has made up mind to choose music as her major, while her father prefers to more practical subject areas, such as engineering, etc, this girl may be unwilling to engage in engineering and will have a bad performance on that subject, on condition that she is forced by her father.

Secondly, sometimes parents' decisions may be harmful to their children, and children must resist such decisions. Consider, for instance, the predetermined marriage in special places of the world, which means that children are determined, by their parents, to marry someone else without children's consent. This is completely incomprehensible. Thus, when these children get married, they tend to be boring with their partners; besides, family violence is more possible to take place.

Thirdly, the best way to deal with teenagers who are from 15 to 18 year-old is to negotiate with them. Fathers, mothers and adult relatives should share their personal experiences and lessons with their children, and tell them potential benefits and harmful consequences of a decision. Furthermore, parents should pay enough attention to children's opinions and try their best to apprehend children's thinking. Then, children decide to choose a choice after taking parents' advice into account.

In summary, parents shouldn't make important decision for their older teenage children. In some cases, it may pose deleterious impacts. Instead, parents should communicate with them and offer useful advice for them to decide.

Topic 51

51. Some people believe that success in life comes from taking risks or chances. Others believe that success results from careful planning. In your opinion, what does success come from? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

METICULOUS SCHEDULE HELPS MUCH MORE

Some of us hold that accomplishment in career or life is from taking risks or catching appropriate opportunities, while still other people believe that one's successful life primarily depends on meticulous plans. In my observation, however, careful planning plays a much more pivotal role in helping a person approach attainments than venturing dose. There are a couples of reasons to reason.

As a threshold matter, in specific cases, venturing does work positive effects on individual progress. This may be true in business. For instance, Bill Gates, the former Chief Executive Officer of Microsoft Corporation, made up his mind to share profits from authorizing the first operating system to IBM, instead of absolutely selling to IBM. This action performed by Bill Gates was considered quite risky at the period, which has been proved to be a wise decision several years later.

However, Bill Gates's fulfillment is only one single example in which fortune works. In many other accomplished cases, positive influences of carefully designed schedule overwhelm those of fortune. Consider, for example, Edison's invention of the incandescent lamp. It is highly impossible of taking chances to choose innumerous materials for lamp in random, instead of prudentially comparing every pair of matter in each control group.

Furthermore, fortune will patronize a person only on condition that this man or woman has been being striving for his or her goal for quite a long time under well-planned time table. Without lucubrating late in night, a student may never have opportunity of attending a prominent university or college, no matter how "lucky" he or she is. Perhaps the paradigmatic example is Don Quijote, though he is a protagonist in novel. Don fails to attain any meaningful gain with his volatile behavior. On the other hand, Don may gain a lot with help from careful planning.

In summary, a meticulously regulated schedule is much more paramount than a hard-to-catch venture. Then, in the final analysis, I consider that enormous accomplishments come from careful planning, and taking risks or chances will not help much without fundamental functions of working out a feasible plan.

Topic 41

41. Some people think that human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important than saving land for endangered animals. Do you agree or disagree with this point of view? Why or why not? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

ENDANGERED ANIMALS OWNS PRIORITY

During the developing history of human beings, we have encountered myriad acute conflicts. In some cases, such as literal controversy, people could always arrive at agreement. However, in still other cases, including natural resources, etc, folks may fail to solve these problems. With respect to endangered animals, in my view, wild animals should be given way to human needs for cropland, household and corporation. They should not be the lowest names on pecking order.

As a threshold matter, animals belong to the weak group while we, human beings, dominate the whole world. For instance, wild panthers may have to die on condition that their living circumstances are completely trampled by human's deforestation. On the other hand, people can migrate to another district if the original one is devastated. Thus, endangered living animals are much more vulnerable to external demolishment, and those poor animals should be taken into account first.

Secondly, from the perspective of the paramount meaning of species, once a kind of animal extinct, specific genes owned by that specie will be lost forever, which is a enormous disadvantage for us. Consider, for example, the genes of panda in China, which conserve ancient information of animals that lived a million years ago. If they are ignored, or yield to certain human needs, these precious genetic information will lost. As a result, a kind of living fossil is lost.

Thirdly, protecting endangered animals doesn't certainly mean that it will no doubt provide harmful influences to our process of evolution. Or, it is quite possible to balance both two factors. For instance, on some certain occasions, people may cram a lake, where an endangered fish lives, to flat ground and later on build a highway or building on the place. Nonetheless, we can first move that rare fish to another lake in the vicinity, or relocate them in an artificial pool, and then construct something else. This may be a practical solution to the conflict between endangered species and mankind.

In summary, under no circumstance should humans merely consider private needs without taking local endangered species into account. It is highly recommended, in my view, that we find another suitable place for these animals.

Topic 31

31. Some people spend their entire lives in one place. Others move a number of times throughout their lives, looking for a better job, house, community, or even climate. Which do you prefer: staying in one place or moving in search of another place? Use reasons and specific examples to support your opinion.

BENEFITS OF MOVING TO A BETTER COMMUNITY

A portion of us prefer to live in one constant location and are very serious about moving houses; while still other people engage in changing their living circumstances until an ideal locus is found. Although the former persons may list a myriad of reasons of staying in a single community or city, in my opinion, searching for a better standard of living is my favorite. To be honest, there are a couple of benefits to move house to meet a high-quantity life.

As a threshold matter, moving to a different district can help me keep fresh. As for me, a relatively long and monotonous life of local community makes me feel gloomy and dreary. Familiar streets, acquainted restaurants and simple parks will gradually loose their attractiveness. It is too tired for me to see these things everyday. Thus, an even slightly different environment would be sediment for me, because fresh community can always arouse my mood and I can put through the rest of a day.

Second, moving to a more industrialized city means that better opportunities of jobs are waiting for me there. As a common sense, mega polis owns much more precious and choice opportunities of work than rural areas. Therefore a considerable salary may be acquired if such a chance is pursued in time, which is merely possible on condition that changing living in a rustic district to a big city.

The third advantage of changing to live in a better district is that it can provide substantial and affluent experience which will no doubt work a positive function in one's career. Consider, for example, my roommate's comprehensive experience of apprehending his new environment during the past several years, in which he has move three or four times. A boring neighbor, the bad condition of a community, and a sapient teacher all contribute to his growing up, according to him. As a result, my roommate obviously possesses a special trait that is not common among ordinary people.

In summary, moving to a better community or district will benefit one in several aspects. Personal experience, methods of tacking sticklers and plunk under tough surroundings will be greatly ameliorated. Furthermore, one's career will be improved to a quite prosperous one.

Topic 21

21. In general, people are living longer now. Discuss the causes of this phenomenon. Use specific reasons and details to develop your essay.

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AMELIORATES PEOPLE'S LIFE

Obviously, people today live a longer life than ever before. It is quite common to encounter folks whose ages surpass seventy, or even eighty; while in ancient times, average life span of multitude was merely approximate fifty, or even younger. As we can imagine, people who will be born in coming century can no doubt have longer life than us today. Generally speaking, several factors have contributed to this phenomenon; however, there are a few direct and paramount causes.

As a threshold matter, ameliorated medical conditions result in a healthier and thus longer life span. For instance, in the 19th century, masses suffered from several lethal diseases, including influenza, pneumonia, and so forth. Doctors of that period had nothing to do with these fatal illnesses; and thus myriad people died from unhealed diseases. With the development of medical facilities and methods of curing, flu or pneumonia is no longer a serious illness that can cause a man or woman to death. As a result, a much healthier life can be predicted.

Second, developed agricultural techniques also contribute much to longer life of human beings. For example, multitudes who were born in ancient period had no advanced automated instruments. Food they took as primary intake was limited to a few common foodstuff: grain, wheat, etc; even fish were extremely luxurious and not easy to catch. While in contemporary, developed agriculture provides us with affluent subsistence, such as all kinds of man-made food.

Third, various insurances is another factor that benefits our age. People today who are going to work in society will be offered a plan of insurance, which will help them throughout when they catch health problems later. The insurance will ensure that people can only spend a small portion of money that has to be used to work out sticklers -- for example, unemployment, flood damage, fire damage, and of course diseases.

In summary, developed and advanced scientific techniques and improved social welfare are the pivotal causes that effects on our longer life span. Furthermore, the pace of development of human beings never halts or slows down; people will own a happier and prolonged life in next century.

Topic 11

11. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Universities should give the same amount of money to their students' sports activities as they give to their university libraries. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.

DECISION DEPENDS ON SPECIAL NEEDS

Whether universities should spend equal money on students' sports and their libraries depends on the primary goal of the universities. With respect to sports universities, faculty should accentuate kinetics more than libraries. On the other hand, leaders of universities ought to place more emphasis on libraries than sports activities. Universities' properties determine the financial support.

First, if students who attend a specific sports university or college are eager to pursue high quality of kinetics education and want to live a career of athlete, university should give a higher priority to developing sports facilities. Under this circumstance, libraries may be placed on a secondary place. Students of that university spend more time on kinetics than reading in a library; thus, first-class sports facilities are among their crucial desires.

Second, enhancement of libraries should be firstly taken into account when a university focuses on academic researches. For instance, my university mainly pays attention to scientific fields, instead of sports, and our university leaders spend more human resources, material resources and financial resources on construction of laboratories and libraries. As a positive result, graduates from our campus possess a relatively higher scientific trait than those graduate from sports ones.

Third, although it is not of wisdom to place commensurate resources on sports and libraries, omitting either of both is neither advocated. Neither should sports overwhelm libraries, nor should libraries. The reason of this is simple: a university or a college will no doubt be harmed on condition that only one field is their advantage. Furthermore, students who study in that university cannot receive wholesome education which will work a propulsion function when they find a job and live a lifetime career.

In summary, the decision on the emphasis between sports and academic libraries primarily is related to properties of a university or a college. Besides, myriad factors must be taken into account and there is no easy answer.